Stern Gone?

[jetpunk2000]

First Opie and Anthony, now Howard. This country is getting WAY too sensitive to the wrong issues.

CNN.com

[Craptacular]

Hey, if they want to take that crap off their airwaves, more power to 'em.

[Easy Mac]

Clear Channel are wankers... thats why we hear the same shit over and over again... let the people make the stars, don't do it for them by playing Britney every 2 minutes.

[cthomer5000]

It's Viacom overreacting (again).

[Fritz]

XM is the answer

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Fritz

XM is the answer

Opie and Anthony are supposedly heading to Sirius the day they are free of their current contract.

[sabotai]

If Clear Channel won't play Stern, someone else will.

[Fritz]

Satelite radio in one form or another will kill broadcast radio

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by sabotai

If Clear Channel won't play Stern, someone else will.

Trust me, he's still getting paid. Just like Opie and Anthony have been collected 3 mill annual paychecks since there show was cancelled.

The Stern thing just sounds like their temporarily taking a break in order to be certain they are not violating guidelines.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Satelite radio in one form or another will kill broadcast radio

Heathen.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Heathen.

Still waiting for a contract offer from them?

[CamEdwards]

This is kind of like Senator talking about Homeland Security stuff since I work for the company in question, but let me just clarify a few things.

1- Viacom isn't yanking Stern, Clear Channel is yanking Stern off the air from the stations they own that run the program.

2- IMO, this may turn out to be a good thing for local radio, since I'd guess at least some of those markets will return to local hosts in the morning. I'd love to see it anyway. I've never understood the syndicated morning drive thing anyway.

3- XM and Sirius have yet to see a penny of profit. In fact, XM is at about half the number of subscribers it needs to break even, and Sirius is so far behind XM it isn't even funny. I think Sirius is going to die, and XM will become somewhat of a niche market.

4- If you think corporate radio is going to be killed by satellite radio... I have bad news. One of the big investors in both XM and Sirius is none other than Clear Channel.

[pjstp20]

This is ridiculous, it's simple if you don't want to listen to Howard Stern turn the stupid station. You know what you're gonna get when you turn on the Stern show so you have no excuse. God, pretty soon radio is gonna be all conservative talk and no one will have any new ideas.

[Fritz]

someone is in denial

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Fritz

someone is in denial

shut up! The horseless carriage is just a fad! You'll see! Blacksmith shops will be around forever!!!

[Suicane75]

It's a shame this is happening now and not in the early 90's when Stern would of fought this, as it is now It seems that he's probably content to ride off into the sunset. This fucking sucks beyond compare, more of Local Bobo and his crazy morning zoo wackos. The FCC should be lined up and shot. People can't deal with things they see or hear they know where the off button is.

[sabotai]

Well, around here Clear Channel doesn't own the station that Stern is played on, so I know I'll still get to listen to him.

[Suicane75]

Its only 5 hours so I guess you'll know soon enough but if you dont know wether or not your station is owned by clearchannel, heres a link to find out hxxp://www.clearchannel.com/rad_search.php

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Its only 5 hours so I guess you'll know soon enough but if you dont know wether or not your station is owned by clearchannel, heres a link to find out hxxp://www.clearchannel.com/rad_search.php

I guess it's about 3 hours now, but I believe the six affected markets are Miami, Orlando, Rochester, Louisville, San Diego and Pittsburgh.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

It's a shame this is happening now and not in the early 90's when Stern would of fought this, as it is now It seems that he's probably content to ride off into the sunset. This fucking sucks beyond compare, more of Local Bobo and his crazy morning zoo wackos. The FCC should be lined up and shot. People can't deal with things they see or hear they know where the off button is.

It's always nice to see the voice of reason.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

It's a shame this is happening now and not in the early 90's when Stern would of fought this, as it is now It seems that he's probably content to ride off into the sunset. This fucking sucks beyond compare, more of Local Bobo and his crazy morning zoo wackos. The FCC should be lined up and shot. People can't deal with things they see or hear they know where the off button is.

Read the article. This isn't so much the FCC as Clear Channel being afraid of the FCC. Before anything does happen, they've pre-emptively pulled the show from their stations until they are satisfied he won't be racking up enormous fines.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

3- XM and Sirius have yet to see a penny of profit. In fact, XM is at about half the number of subscribers it needs to break even, and Sirius is so far behind XM it isn't even funny. I think Sirius is going to die, and XM will become somewhat of a niche market.

4- If you think corporate radio is going to be killed by satellite radio... I have bad news. One of the big investors in both XM and Sirius is none other than Clear Channel.

But, the subscriber base is growing for both of those, and it is possible that landing a couple marquee names could significantly boost sales. Personally, I think if the hardware were cheaper, you'd see far more subscribers to both services.

I think eventually that

satellite::AM/FM radio
cable::network TV

[CleBrownsfan]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

Hey, if they want to take that crap off their airwaves, more power to 'em.

If you don't like Stern - don't listen!!!! Easy as that...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

If you don't like Stern - don't listen!!!! Easy as that...

If you want to keep your FCC license -- don't violate the rules you agreed to abide by when you got it !!!! Easy as that ...

[Hands to the Face]

It should be noted that only six clear Channel Stations (all in Florida, I believe) carried Stern and constituted a small fraction of his listener base. The vast majority of his affiliates are Infinity/CBS stations and will continue to broadcast him, albeit with heavy built-in delays that allow individual stations to "dump" potentially questionable content.

[Taur]

I don't like this one damn bit. Why, because of how vague the article is. They are banning Howard more for who he is, than what he did. I kept reading expecting to find some refrence to a particular event or item, but no example of his behavier was ever given.

[Ben E Lou]

Ummmmm....if Clear Channel decided that they want to go a different direction, isn't it their business how they run their business???

[Honolulu_Blue]

Interesting how Stern gets cesnored NOW, just when he started to be critical of Bush. I don't care for Stern. I've listened to all of 20 minutes of his show in my life. That being said, this is a f*cking joke.
How to Lose Your Job in Talk Radio
http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article3.html

Clear Channel gags an antiwar conservative.


By Charles Goyette

“Imagine these startling headlines with the nation at war in the Pacific six months after Dec. 7, 1941: “No Signs of Japanese Involvement in Pearl Harbor Attack! Faulty Intelligence Cited; Wolfowitz: Mistakes Were Made.”

Or how about an equally disconcerting World War II headline from the European theater: “German Army Not Found in France, Poland, Admits President; Rumsfeld: ‘Oops!’, Powell Silent; ‘Bring ’Em On,’ Says Defiant FDR.”

It seems to me that when there is reason to go to war, it should be self-evident. The Secretary of State should not need to convince a skeptical world with satellite photos of a couple of Toyota pickups and a dumpster. And faced with a legitimate casus belli, it should not be hard to muster an actual constitutional declaration of war. Now in the absence of a meaningful Iraqi role in the 9/11 attack and the mysterious disappearance of those fearsome Weapons of Mass Destruction, there might be some psychic satisfaction to be had in saying, “I told you so!” But it sure isn’t doing my career as a talk-show host any good.

The criterion of self-evidence was only one of dozens of objections I raised before the elective war in Iraq on my afternoon drive-time talk show on KFYI in Phoenix. Many of the other arguments are familiar to readers of The American Conservative.

But the case for war was a shape-shifter, skillfully morphing into a new rationale as quickly as the old one failed to withstand scrutiny. For a year before the war, I scrambled to keep up with the latest incarnations of the neocon case. Most were pitifully transparent and readily exposed. (Besides the aluminum tubes and the trailers that had Bush saying, “Gotcha,” does anyone remember those death-dealing drones? Never have third-world, wind-up, rubber-band, balsa-wood airplanes instilled so much fear in so many people.) Still, my management didn’t like my being out of step with the president’s parade of national hysteria, and the war-fevered spectators didn’t care to be told they were suffering illusions. So after three years, I was replaced on my primetime talk show by the Frick and Frack of Bushophiles, two giggling guys who think everything our tongue-tied president does is “Most excellent, dude!” I have been relegated to the later 7–10 p.m. slot, when most people, even in a congested commuting market like Phoenix, are already home watching TV.

Why did this happen? Why only a couple of months after my company picked up the option on my contract for another year in the fifth-largest city in the United States, did it suddenly decide to relegate me to radio Outer Darkness? The answer lies hidden in the oil-and-water incompatibility of these two seemingly disconnected phrases: “Criticizing Bush” and “Clear Channel.”

Criticizing Bush? Well then, must I be some sort of rug-chewing liberal? Not even close. As a boy, I stood on the grass in a small Arizona town square when Barry Goldwater officially began his 1964 presidential run. And I was there for the last official event of the Goldwater campaign. My job was to recruit and manage my fellow junior-high and high-school conservatives in a phone bank operation, calling supporters to fill up as many buses as possible to help pack the stadium—a show of strength for the nation’s television viewers. Of course that’s an insignificant role to play in a presidential campaign, but it was pretty heady stuff for a 14-year-old kid from Flagstaff.

I broke with Goldwater in 1976 over his decision to back Gerald Ford instead of Ronald Reagan for the Republican presidential nomination. Ford was a perfectly decent, if ordinary, Republican (who could have taught the big-spending W. Bush a thing or two about the use of the veto!). But I took my conservatism seriously. Reagan was clearly the champion of the conservative cause.

Perhaps I’m just anti-military? No. I am proud of my honorable service and of the Army Commendation Medal I was awarded. I also spent a good deal of time in the 1980s as a member of the Speakers Bureau of High Frontier, promoting Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, a defense policy unlike today’s in that it was actually designed to defend the American people.

I have been a Republican precinct committeeman; my county Republican Party elected me its “Man of the Year” in 1988; I have written speeches for conservative candidates and office holders; and I have been employed by statewide and national political organizations and campaigns, including the National Conservative Political Action Committee. Despite my disappointment in Goldwater for not supporting Reagan, I was there when a small band of the faithful—no more than four or five of us—gathered for a potluck dinner to support the creation of a brand-new public-policy think tank named after “Mr. Conservative.” The enterprise blossomed, and I was honored several months ago to serve as Master of Ceremonies for the Goldwater Institute’s 15th Anniversary Gala.

I can assure you then that my criticism of Bush has been on the basis of long-held conservative principles. It begins with respect for the wisdom of the Founders and the Constitution’s division of power and delegation of authority, and extends to an adherence to the principles of governmental restraint and fiscal prudence. It proved to be a message that was more than a little inconvenient for my employer.

Clear Channel Communications, the 800-pound gorilla of the radio business, owns an astonishing 1,200 stations in 50 states, including Newstalk 550 KFYI in Phoenix, where I do the afternoon program … or did until last summer. The principals of Clear Channel, a Texas-based company, have been substantial contributors to George W. Bush’s fortunes since before he became president. In fact, Texas billionaire Tom Hicks can be said to be the man who made Bush a millionaire when he purchased the future president’s baseball team, the Texas Rangers. Tom Hicks is now vice chairman of Clear Channel. Clear Channel stations were unusually visible during the war with what corporate flacks now call “pro-troop rallies.” In tone and substance, they were virtually indistinguishable from pro-Bush rallies. I’m sure the administration, which faced a host of regulatory issues affecting Clear Channel, was not displeased.

Criticism of Bush and his ever-shifting pretext for a first-strike war (what exactly was it we were pre-empting anyway?) has proved so serious a violation of Clear Channel’s cultural taboo that only a good contract has kept me from being fired outright. Roxanne Cordonier, a radio personality at Clear Channel’s WMYI 102.5 in Greenville, S.C., didn’t have it as good. Cordonier, who worked under the name Roxanne Walker, was the South Carolina Broadcasters Association’s 2002 Radio Personality of the Year. That apparently wasn’t enough for Clear Channel. Her lawsuit against the company alleges that she was belittled on the air and reprimanded by her station for opposing the invasion of Iraq. Then she was fired.

They couldn’t really fire me, at least without paying me a substantial sum of money, but I was certainly belittled on the air for opposing the war. The other KFYI talk-show hosts—so bloodthirsty that they made Bush apologists and superhawks Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity sound moderate—vilified me almost daily. As a former radio-station owner myself, it was a little hard to believe management would allow one of their key hosts to be trashed day in and day out on their own airwaves. After all, we sell radio time on the basis of its ability to influence people’s behavior. A wiser programming approach would have been to showcase me as an object of curiosity, with a challenge to listeners to see if they could discover where I had gone wrong or how I was missing the imminent threat Iraq posed to the American people. No doubt the constant vilification I received and my heterodoxy on the war cost me audience during the interlude. It was certainly enough to get pictures of me morphing into those of the French president posted on the Free Republic Web site during the “freedom fries” silliness. A banner there read, “Boycott Charles Chirac Goyette at KFYI radio Phoenix, AZ! Protest against the Charles Goyette Show from 4-7pm at KFYI for his leftist subervsive [sic] Bush-bashing rants. Turn off KFYI radio for the Charles Goyette Show! No liberal scum talk shows on KFYI!” Radio does provoke people, doesn’t it?

One Clear Channel executive had me take an unexpected day off for the sin of reporting the breaking news on March 27, 2003, that neocon hawk Richard Perle, of the Defense Policy Board, had relinquished his chairmanship under scrutiny of his business dealings and for blaspheming that Donald Rumsfeld was the worst Secretary of Defense since Robert McNamara. So great were these transgressions that the radio gods themselves must have been aghast at my impiety. I explained in conference-room confrontations that both positions were completely respectable points of view. The comparison with McNamara had been made repeatedly in subsequent days in the mainstream media. I specifically cited “The McLaughlin Group” the following Friday and the New York Times the following Monday, and in describing the Perle resignation, I relied upon details from both Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker and from syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington. “Well, then,” they explained, the problem was “the emotionalism” of my remarks. Imagine that, emotionalism in talk radio? I reminded them that for years we had run promotions identifying KFYI as “the Place with More Passion,” where the Charles Goyette Show was positioned as “Fearless Talk Radio!”

Clear Channel made it clear—“With you, I feel like I’m managing the Dixie Chicks,” said my program director—that they would have liked to fire me anyway. While a well-drafted contract made that difficult, it did not prevent them from tucking me away outside prime time.

So I’m a talk-show war casualty. My contract expires in a few more months and—my iconoclasm being noted—it is not likely it will be renewed. Among the survivors at my station: one host who wanted to nuke Afghanistan (he bills himself as “your voice of reason and moderation”) and another who upon learning that 23-year-old Mideast peace activist Rachel Corrie had been run over by an Israeli bulldozer shouted, “Back up and run over her again!” As he doesn’t quite get some of the important distinctions in these debates, such as that Iranians should not be called Arabs, we would hope that he’s not taken too seriously. Likewise my replacements in the afternoon drive slot, brought in for glamorizing the war and billed as “The Comedy Channel meets Talk Radio.” If you remember the “Saturday Night Live” skit “Superfans” with Mike Myers and Chris Farley—“Who’s stronger, God or da Bulls?” “Da Bulls!”—then you get the idea. Only instead of “da Bulls,” it’s three hours every afternoon of “da Bush!” Expect to hear more insightful topics like “So Who’s Tougher: Michael Jordan or Donald Rumsfeld?”

I’ve seen how war fever infects a people. And I was in a no-win situation, with an audience pre-screened by virtue of 11 hours a day of screaming war frenzy—unlistenable for the uninfected—that surrounded my time slot. So I knew there would be a personal price for opposing the war, and I was prepared to pay it. But as a lover of the rough and tumble of public debate and the contest of ideas, I am disappointed at what is happening in my industry. At least at Clear Channel, there’s only one word for the belief that talk radio is still a fair and fearless search for the truth: “Un-Bull-ieveable!”

[CleBrownsfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If you want to keep your FCC license -- don't violate the rules you agreed to abide by when you got it !!!! Easy as that ...

The problem is that no one knows the "guidelines" to abide by...

Eh, it's only freedom of speach... I guess the government can take that away from us... Thanks Bush

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

The problem is that no one knows the "guidelines" to abide by...

Eh, it's only freedom of speach... I guess the government can take that away from us... Thanks Bush

Again, unless I'm reading this very, very wrong, this wasn't a government decision. This was a decision by a private company. Big difference.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Again, unless I'm reading this very, very wrong, this wasn't a government decision. This was a decision by a private company. Big difference.

SD, see my post above. This decision was made by a "private company" that has some serious, serious ties to the Bush Administration. I think this company acts "privately" about as much as Haliburton.

[CleBrownsfan]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Ummmmm....if Clear Channel decided that they want to go a different direction, isn't it their business how they run their business???

I agree BUT the only reason why they are going that direction is because of the heat they're getting from the FCC.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

SD, see my post above. This decision was made by a "private company" that has some serious, serious ties to the Bush Administration. I think this company acts "privately" about as much as Haliburton.

So? Some people have influence. Some don't. That's the way life works in a free society.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Here's some more on it:

The Clear Channel company, an unprecedented media monopoly, has close
personal ties with the Bush family. The vice chairman of CC once
arranged a business deal that made George W. a millionaire.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/radiogaga.html

They have in the past not hesitated to fire outspoken on-air critics of
President George W. Bush. Including anti-war conservatives.

http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article3.html

http://azplace.net/index.php?itemid=325

They have sponsored supposedly 'grassroots' pro-Bush and pro-war rallies:

http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=660

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

So? Some people have influence. Some don't. That's the way life works in a free society.

Free so long as you don't criticize Big Brother it seems...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Here's some more on it:

The Clear Channel company, an unprecedented media monopoly, has close
personal ties with the Bush family. The vice chairman of CC once
arranged a business deal that made George W. a millionaire.

http://www.takebackthemedia.com/radiogaga.html

They have in the past not hesitated to fire outspoken on-air critics of
President George W. Bush. Including anti-war conservatives.

http://www.amconmag.com/1_19_04/article3.html

http://azplace.net/index.php?itemid=325

They have sponsored supposedly 'grassroots' pro-Bush and pro-war rallies:

http://www.refuseandresist.org/war/art.php?aid=660

I say again, "So?". If a liberal-owned network wanted to fire an on-air personality for making a playing a DJ-remix of the Howard Dean scream, then that's their business, too.

[CamEdwards]

where's that :rolleyes graemlin when you need him?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

where's that :rolleyes graemlin when you need him?

I believe someone used it in a post once criticizing Bush and it was banned from the web entirely by Clear Channel.

[Subby]

I completely agree that Clear Channel is within their rights to remove Stern from the airwaves. I don't agree with their actions, but that is beside the point.

My concern is with the consolidation of the entertainemnt/media industry in general. As a casual observer I feel like deregulation has given us a bunch of media conglomerates at the expense of the average entertainment consumer.

I can't articulate this point real well, but companies like Fox, TimeWarner, Clear Channel, Viacom and Disney give me a general feeling of dread.

[wig]

Where was this outrage when I got laid off?

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally Posted by wig

Where was this outrage when I got laid?

Somebody's crying somewhere.

[AgPete]

Originally Posted by jetpunk2000

First Opie and Anthony, now Howard. This country is getting WAY too sensitive to the wrong issues.

CNN.com

I agree. The freaking moral police are in full swing now. Ever since Janet Jackson, everyone flips out about the little thing. Sheesh, you'd think no one had ever seen a nipple. I wish people could put as much effort into helping impoverished kids as they at protesting someone that curses or flashes on TV or the radio.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by AgPete

I agree. The freaking moral police are in full swing now. Ever since Janet Jackson, everyone flips out about the little thing. Sheesh, you'd think no one had ever seen a nipple. I wish people could put as much effort into helping impoverished kids as they at protesting someone that curses or flashes on TV or the radio.

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Look around this country. How many food banks, homeless shelters, community action agencies, etc. have been operating for years? I would say far more people help impoverished kids than complained to the FCC. In fact, I'd guarantee it. There were 200,000 complaints to the FCC about the Janet Jackson incident. There are MILLIONS of people who donate to help impoverished children.

This is about one government deciding enough is enough on the public airwaves, one company agreeing, and six stations not airing Howard Stern this morning.

You want to talk about much ado about nothing... I'd say people claiming this is censorship or the end of free broadcasting as we know it are good examples of that phenomenon.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I say again, "So?". If a liberal-owned network wanted to fire an on-air personality for making a playing a DJ-remix of the Howard Dean scream, then that's their business, too.

Actually its illegal.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

The problem is that no one knows the "guidelines" to abide by...

Eh, it's only freedom of speach... I guess the government can take that away from us... Thanks Bush

Once again, I repeat -- there's no professional broadcaster in the world who can't look at 99% of the material that draws complaints & tell you which side of the line it falls on. I've been having that same basic conversation for weeks with people in the business all over the country, haven't found one yet that disagrees. These aren't gray area cases you're seeing, they're clear violations. And they're less than 1% of all the violations that occur, it's largely a matter of who has the bad luck to a) get caught red-handed & b) get reported & c) have both a & b happen at the same time.

The only difference between now & the past 10-20 years is that the rules are at least occasionally being enforced. The rules haven't changed, only the willingness to enforce them. And that's come about only (IMO) due to the demand from the public that they be enforced (which started before the SB, incidentally). The FCC was all but put on notice by Congress several months ago that they'd either start doing their job again or they'd be replaced by a combination of agencies that did it for them. Ain't much that motivates action like a little job insecurity.

And while I'm usually the last person you'll see defending Clear Channel for anything (90% of the time I simply refer to them as "The Evil Empire"), I sure don't think they deserve singling out for exercising a little CYA in a half-dozen markets. They're actually a little late to the party (an oversight that had to be corrected before their CEO testifies on Capitol Hill later today), with several other "mega-casters" already taking similar steps over the past two weeks. The Stern dilemma they faced was different from the vast majority of their stations (I mean, this is 6 stations out of some 1,200), where the air talent is either under contract directly to the CC station or under contract to CC (for syndicated shows). They basically have direct control of those, screw up & they can fire 'em (again, see job insecurity as motivation). With a contracted deal like Stern's, that's not an option they have, he works for Infinity.

What may be lost somewhere along the way is that, ultimately, every broadcast license holder bears the final responsibility for what is broadcast. Absent adequate ways to control the talent directly, removing them from your broadcast is the only real guarantee that something actionable won't be done "in your name". In other words, it's not Stern that pays the fine, it's CCE. And how stupid would any company be to continue a situation where someone else's employee could get them fined?
(And in this case, I'd say it isn't just "could" but rather "is likely to").

As many problems as CC has right now, I can't blame them one bit for exercising their right (& responsibility) to cover their own asses.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You want to talk about much ado about nothing... I'd say people claiming this is censorship or the end of free broadcasting as we know it are good examples of that phenomenon.

But you start putting pieces together and add it up and it is a step in that direction...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

This is kind of like Senator talking about Homeland Security stuff since I work for the company in question, but let me just clarify a few things.

1- Viacom isn't yanking Stern, Clear Channel is yanking Stern off the air from the stations they own that run the program.

2- IMO, this may turn out to be a good thing for local radio, since I'd guess at least some of those markets will return to local hosts in the morning. I'd love to see it anyway. I've never understood the syndicated morning drive thing anyway.

3- XM and Sirius have yet to see a penny of profit. In fact, XM is at about half the number of subscribers it needs to break even, and Sirius is so far behind XM it isn't even funny. I think Sirius is going to die, and XM will become somewhat of a niche market.

4- If you think corporate radio is going to be killed by satellite radio... I have bad news. One of the big investors in both XM and Sirius is none other than Clear Channel.

I don't think satellite radio will kill local radio any more than cable tv killed local broadcast stations. I think people want a certain bit of local content in their programming. I am considering getting satellite radio for road trips, and for a certain 'dead spot' in local programming here, but most of the time would listen to the local stations.

As for the 'syndicated morning drive' thing, I happen to listen to a syndicated show in my morning drive time. There are largely two reasons. First, I think for the most part, they have bigger budgets, and can be better produced, hire the best talent, etc. Second, and most importantly, the local programming in my area stinks. I listen to sports radio mostly, but have listened to typical FM morning shows mixing music with hosts trying to be funny. I have enjoyed some of those in the past, but cannot stand any of the locals. So, the most entertaining option for me is Mike & Mike.

[wig]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

But you start putting pieces together and add it up and it is a step in that direction...

SLIPPERY SLOPE SIGHTING!!!!!!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Actually its illegal.

Umm ... I wouldn't think so. The employee of a license holder does not have the right to do/say whatever they please via a license someone else holds.

Minus individual contracts that dictate otherwise, the license holder (aka employer) has the right to determine what is broadcast on their transmitter. If I want to fire you for saying "snow" instead of "frozen precipitation", you're gone. Play the wrong song at the wrong time, you're gone. Fail to perform in the ratings, you're gone. Decide I want to go in a different direction, say from talk to rock or from rock to urban, you're gone.

An on-air employee has zero right to say whatever they please on the air, no more than a Circuit City employee has the "right" to insist on wearing a Best Buy smock to work.

In theory, you'd be correct if the action/speech/whatever, was taken on the employee's own time.

But that's nothing I can't remove with a well-written "conduct detrimental", "morals", or similar contractual clause. I can't bind & gag you physically from saying/doing something on your own time, but if you do it publically & you're a recognized representative of my company, then your right to free speech doesn't extend to damaging my business without the option of recourse in the process.

[Ben E Lou]

Even it is illegal, I'd say it shouldn't be...but that is opening up a whole new can o' worms.